Most Democrats embrace more junk science than do many Republicans. Catastrophic man-made global warming is not only unscientific but antiscientific. Liberals & conservatives both have fallen for the anti-vaccine nonsense. My impression is that more Democrats worry about GM foods than Republicans. Humans have been genetically modifying food for at least 10,000 years. Compare & contrast corn with teosinte grass if you want to see some serious GM action.

The only bad rap of which the GOP is probably more guilty than Democrats is opposition to evolution, but the difference isn’t as great as commonly thought in elite circles. Of post-war GOP presidents, IMO Reagan was the only one with serious doubts about the reality of evolution, which he called “only a theory”. OTOH, Truman, Carter & probably LBJ were fundamentalists, if not Young Earth Creationists. I have a Vietnam vet medic buddy who watches only MSNBC but doesn’t buy evolution, no matter how much I try to explain it to him, so I’ve quit trying.

“People who become journalists because they want to “change things” are some of the most dangerous people in the world.”
Yep – those people will do anything to save the earth.
Except study science (& logic.)
thanks
JK

Activist “journalists” are probably less dangerous than people who become “scientists” because they want to “change things”.

Latitude: touche’!

Now that I think about it, Young Earth Creationists are arguably more scientific than Warmunistas. At least they make falsifiable predictions, which always are falsified, but hey, they try, unlike the CACCA “projectionists”. But like CACC Alarmists, no amount of falsification changes their minds, although the discovery of a protomammal with both the reptilian & mammalian jaw attachment did stagger them for a brief moment.

First, what science is David looking at? Droughts, floods, forest fires..that is not in any peer reviewed literature as resulting from Co2. Second, he is not that interested in a dialogue. He is more interested in talking about his views. He is still pushing that 6 degree temperature change. I presume he means warming. A 6 degree drop would be fatal for many. But that does not occur to him.

jim says:
June 15, 2013 at 6:38 pm
“People who become journalists because they want to “change things” are some of the most dangerous people in the world.”
Yep – those people will do anything to save the earth.
Except study science (& logic.)
thanks
JK
==============

Science, logic ….

…. and might I add calculus, as Bart pointed out on another thread to some posters (yes the conclusion-driven third raters) who should be truly ashamed of themselves.

Should ask these folks who toss around “deniers” as if it meant something exactly what they mean by the term. I’m quite sure they’d be surprised by what denier actually think. Nowadays the deniers are people like them who refuse to accept the fact that the Earth ain’t getting any warmer. They need to be continually referred to as “temperature deniers.”

not quite the scientific “consensus”, but encouraging news nonetheless:

15 June: FirstPost: Reuters: Russia challenges consensus rule at heart of U.N. climate talks
Eighteen years on, the consensus system has run up against a powerful opponent: Russia, with two of its ex-Soviet neighbours, is denouncing it as too vague, and their opposition could thwart progress towards the next deal to fight climate change, due to be agreed in 2015.
Seething after they were overruled in a consensus decision at U.N. talks in Qatar last year, Russia, Belarus and Ukraine blocked one strand of two-week climate talks in Bonn ending on Friday, by insisting on clearer rules for decision-making…
“Our process is very sick,” Russian delegate Oleg Shamanov said…
The two-week delay in Bonn has led to calls for environment ministers and leaders to help stop the process from unravelling…
Even if no change to the process is made, delegates say the spat in Bonn means future chairs will be less hasty in reaching for their hammer to force through measures while objections remain – and that could lead to more complex talks.
“I presume that future…presidents will be much more careful before just trying to gavel things through. Maybe they will give (it) another few hours to try to come to consensus,” said Artur Runge-Metzger, a senior negotiator with the European Commission.
Others said it could lead to a less ambitious deal…
“It will certainly make the negotiations even tougher than they already are and strengthen the hand of those who want to water down the ambition or have as weak an agreement as possible, or even no agreement at all, in 2015,” AOSIS’s Jumeau said.http://www.firstpost.com/world/russia-challenges-consensus-rule-at-heart-of-u-n-climate-talks-873197.html

if only Revkin & Co had the humour of sceptics like Monckton and David Rose:

16 June: UK Daily Mail: David Rose: Madness of the Met Office Summit meeting to find out why our weather is… normal.
As of lunchtime yesterday, the Met Office wasn’t at all sure how Britain’s weather would turn out today. According to a spokesman, some of its computer models were predicting ‘a rather miserable day for some southern areas’. Others, however, suggested it would be ‘fine and bright’.
‘Sometimes the atmosphere can provide a real challenge for forecasters,’ the spokesman admitted wearily…
This is, of course, the same Met Office that next week is set to host what some have termed an ‘unprecedented’ meeting of climate scientists, an attempt to ‘brainstorm’ whether the ‘extreme weather’ of the past few years has been caused by ‘climate change’…
The cold winter and spring of 2013, the bitter winter of 2010, the floods of 2012 and the disappointing summers of the past seven years – all are up for discussion, together with their supposed origins.
No mention, you may notice, of the droughts and heatwaves we were once told to brace ourselves for as a consequence of what used to be termed global warming.
Then, as an analysis last week demonstrated, the period without a statistically significant increase in global average temperatures has now reached 17 years four months.
Small wonder that the nature of the world’s impending doom has had to be rebranded…
Last week yet another round of UN climate talks broke up without (as usual) an agreement on how to limit emissions of carbon dioxide. They took place in Bonn, which, like Britain, was enduring a chilly spell.
‘Winter has been extended,’ explained a delegate from the Cook Islands. ‘It’s supposed to be really hot, but it’s not, because global warming is happening right now.’…
Centuries ago, when astronomers found it hard to square their observations with the then-orthodox theory that the Earth lay at the centre of the universe, they invented the concept of ‘epicycles’, convoluted wobbles and twists that supposedly accounted for such discrepancies.
Citing some cold British winters and unsettled summers as evidence of climate change has about as much credibility. I suppose we should be thankful that unlike the bogus epicycles, such efforts are not, as yet, being enforced by the Inquisition.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2342434/DAVID-ROSE-Madness-Met-Office-Summit-meeting-weather–normal.html

This idea that republicans don’t care about science has always mystified me. I would say that Repuiblicans do not implicitly trust scientists speaking as unquestioned experts on the necessary POLICY measures. Republicans tend to be skeptical of people telling them they know better how others should live.

It’s a shame this makes news. Climate realists need to do more than be right, they have to get out more. I really appreciate that the level of knowledge about how the climate system works is better among the realists than those picking cherry pie-in-the-sky moments to snivel about global warming and how da debbil hisself is funding a war against their belief system.

It is a constant source of embarrassment that the CBC in Canada finds carefully picked cherries and daily hoists them on a halberd of climate alarm, “It’s the witches! It’s the witches!!”

May the spell one day be broken and may they awaken from their dream world.

Google “hangouts” are nothing new. We’ve had Apple’s Macworld Hangouts, Micro$oft hangouts, Woodstock hangouts, Burning Man hangouts, whatever hangouts. The new yuppies just bored out of their skulls, who can’t think of anything more productive to do than “hangout”.

A person to whom I am blood related, wants to take my car and go hangout with some “really big people” in the film industry; professionals like. At times, this person likes to “hangout” with past high school classmates. One such who isn’t much into “hangouts”, just happens to reside at Lemore NAS in central California. Well he doesn’t hangout; he flies a US Navy F-18 Super-hornet instead.

Hanging out, won’t get you a ride in a Super-hornet.

Revkin and Roberts, ought to try out Burning Man; they don’t fit the Woodstock mold.

The bit that I found most interesting was the attempt by Roberts to analyse the sources of scepticism in sociological terms. There were two things mentioned specifically

1. People deciding what to believe and then looking for evidence to support it.
2. People being strongly influenced in their belief by the group.

What interested me is that this is precisely how I think of alarmists.

1. You can’t tell me that all those keen green young activists protesting with papier mache animals have looked at the evidence and made up their own minds. Most – like that lovely delegate from the Cooks – clearly have not thought about the evidence at all. They are simply parrotting the approved beliefs of their group with brain turned off.

2. It is also clear that many greens are seduced by the idea of an impending catastrophe. Some see technology as sin and warming as the much anticipated flood that will make us abandon our evil ways. Greens of the watermelon variety see it as an excuse to attack capitalism. Others are simply looking for a cause to give meaning to their lives.

I also was interested to note that for Roberts the idea that one could question the science was not part of his world view. He seems to display the attitude that one should simply accept what scientists say. Revkin is less unthinkingly accepting, probably because he knows more science.

“45 min Roberts on social proof: Really nobody is acting as if they really believed in global warming alarmism. ***
52 Roberts: hard-core deniers know more about climate than casual believers;… ”

***************

They KNOW it’s only a belief. Their language betrays them.

You and a buddy are sitting around talking about something you are fairly certain is true, for instance, that using “chemical” versus organic (i.e., steer manure) fertilizer does not change the biochemical composition of strawberries. Would you be more likely to say:

“Really, nobody is acting as if they really believed in [werewolves.]”

**********************
It’s all about CONTROL.

I would not be surprised to find out that Roberts is a Socialist (or, if you prefer, Anti-Free Markets): “39 min Roberts wants to ‘Force people to behave differently’. Wants a certain class of people (“His class”, “elites”) to force people to behave differently.” [emphasis mine]

Perhaps, just a thought, it was the “Serenity Prayer”? [“10min Revkin: Serenity prayer;… “]

“God, grant me the serenity to
accept the things I cannot change [humans cannot change earth’s climate],
the courage to
change the things I can [my former ignorance of scientific truth],
and the wisdom to know the difference.”

Maybe, God answered his prayer (just not in the way he intended God to answer it).

johanna says: “Roberts’ lack of self-awareness is truly remarkable. Slavery, death trains – there is no absurdity that seems to strike him as the least bit wacky, not to mention offensive.”

Roberts thinks of himself as a liberal, i.e., unfettered by convention. Unlike old-style ‘liberals,’ the ‘conventions’ his sort of liberal discards include good taste, the scientific method, logic, good sense, facts, ethics, human rights, and even sanity. The hubris is thick enough for an elephant to trot on.

What worries me is that with David Roberts’ insistence that oil executives control the Earth climate,
we would have to give them gigantic bonuses since they kept the temperature growth in check for 16 years now.

With extras for the recent start of the temperatures decline 2002-present.

Unlike Mr. Roberts, many of us find such rewards unnecessary, given that those executives do quite well for themselves.
What with all the demand for their products growing.

Tough times ahead for all enviros, they all have to fly coach without exception. Let’s see if they live up to it. When is Hansen and Mann going to ask for the death planes to have business and first class seating removed, it’s time for the environuts to give up the good life.

After all his predictions failed spectacularly, in the middle of 16 years of no warming in spite of high CO2 levels, the man says:
I have a new one: 6C by very soon….

Even his Nuremberg trials for oil executives went funny:
climate “scientists” are the ones who are desperately trying to get from the UN blanket immunity from prosecution – they know something – alas, with no success so far.

As to no debates – every wannabe professional comedian keeps his jokes for the hoped for stand up breakthrough.

That’s the sound of a convert finally looking at the actual data and maybe thinking whats us horrible skeptics and deniers have Been arguing might well have valid points. The fact that he is saying the skeptical ones are the most well informed people in the debate should ring alarm bells. Revkin seems to be waking up to the fact that the skeptics are winning because they have the facts and data in their side. But can’t quite bring himself to convert to the dark side of climate skepticism just yet. It’s almost like watching a cultist being removed from a cult and trying waking up to the reality of the world is completely different from what his leaders have been preaching for a decade or more.

1. The Democrats are the real anti-science fanatics. Anybody remember the IQ and race debates of the 1960’s? The current climate debate is a re-run of that stupidity, only on a global scale, since only the USA ever obsessed over that issue. The Democrats never recovered from that. They have been living a lie ever since. I know. I lived through this.

2. About evolution. What Democrat do you know who understands and accepts evolution? My Democrat friends think we will evolve bigger brains in the future, for example. It’s like they don’t have a clue.

joel says:
June 16, 2013 at 3:32 am
“2. About evolution. What Democrat do you know who understands and accepts evolution? My Democrat friends think we will evolve bigger brains in the future, for example. It’s like they don’t have a clue.”

“Roberts: Thinks the best way to get his preferred policy is via Machiavellian means”

Climategate revealed that has been what “well-meaning” left of centre environmentalist warrior “scientists” have been doing since the mid 80’s.

Fake “inquiries” and lack of a prosecution of for criminal fraud shows that the governing establishment blesses that kind of activity, though likely not for the same reasons as our naive co-warrior academics.

braddles says:
June 15, 2013 at 6:17 pm
People who become journalists because they want to “change things” are some of the most dangerous people in the world.
==================
Back in 1996 I was trying to run a small startup – really small, just a couple part-time employees working for me. One was a friend of my step-daughter who was a senior in high school. One day we were talking and he indicated he planned to go into Journalism. I asked why. His answer was “I want to change the world”. As we spoke further and he talked about the courses in the curriculum, it was clear that the academic world encouraged this thinking and I knew right then that true journalism was being lost.

I can’t believe Roberts had the audacity to throw out the “6C” of CO2 induced warming.

It’s like these liberal zombies believe if you worry, complain , cajole, berate, tax, spend, regulate and repeat something often enough, just out of sheer will, it will come to fruition; regardless of whether empirical evidence shows it impossible.

I felt Roberts’ real concer wasn’t whether CAGW exists, but rather people, including Revink, have stopped believing in the gloom and doom CAGW dogma.

The body language between the two was very defensive. Roberts was VERY defensive with his arms locked firmly accross his chest and showed real anxiety many instances of axiety by making quick and sharp changes in seating posture during the discussion.

The CAGW grant whores appear to be much more worried about their beloved theory than they are letting on.

I think this truly is the beginning of the end; even the grant whores are losing faith in “The Cause”.

I used to go to DotEarth on a regular basis. I usually didn’t agree with Andy or many of his regular blog contributors but it was one of the few places where people with strong differing opinions could exchange them with little censorship. It’s also a blog that is not just about climate change but many other environmental issues and global population growth. While Andy came to many issues with a strong point of view you got the feeling that was taking a lot in. At the most fundamental level, I suspect Andy realized that many green zealots were quite loathe to see opposing opinions presented. I also suspect he saw many green solutions weren’t without unintended consequences of their own, particularly biofuels. There are no questions with respect to what side he’s on in this battle but I think he recognizes the extraordinary collateral damage of some of the weapons his compatriots want to use to fight it.

Revkin at 15:40 “… two different climate models show for Sub-Saharan Africa, coming decades, one was wetter and one was drier …”

I find it interesting that they both seem to accept this as valid uncertainty in what higher CO2 may bring to sub-Saharan Africa, but they both seem rather certain that CO2 will cause a warmer earth and there is no uncertainty from any balancing effects. The models that show doubling CO2 will jack the temperature up 6 degrees are certainly no less complicated then that of CO2 effects on drought verses flood in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Roberts at 52:00 “… people tend to choose their beliefs, and then go out seeking evidence to bolster those views.”

He says this just before he fesses up that climate deniers likely know more about climate than the middling warmists, and implies that this is a bad process. Basically that’s how the scientific method works. You stake out a position and try and substantiate it. Then typically you get into it and see some surprises. If you have an open mind you learn something and you alter your views to what you learned. If you always just take in other peoples claims and don’t research against a hypothesis you are not a very capable assessor of fact verses fiction.

“…The only bad rap of which the GOP is probably more guilty than Democrats is opposition to evolution, but the difference isn’t as great as commonly thought in elite circles. ”

In terms of PRACTICAL application of the theory of evolution, the difference is zero, or possibly even in favor of fundamentalists. Try applying the theory to big government. The conclusion from applying the theory of evolution would be that those in big government would be chiefly interested in propagation their OWN genes at the expense of all those unrelated to them who are NOT a part of that big government. The conclusion for fundamentalists would be that those in big government, like everyone else, are imbued with original sin, and are apt to be lousy promulgators of the good life. Leftists on the other hand believe in the inherent “goodness” of people- those in big government will altruistically use their power to help unfortunate total strangers unrelated to them- completely at odds with the theory of evolution.

LOL. I thought it was the other way around. I’ve never understood why Democrats always think that Republicans are anti-science. If anything, they’re just more skeptical based on what they’ve experienced in REAL life, not just on a piece of paper. I’ve learned pretty early in my life about it. I love learning about science but I’m pretty obsessive about learning every detail before I come to a conclusion of how things are run. Just because what they teach you in college doesn’t mean they are the best or most up to date. Try saying that sun is good for you to a dermatologists and they will freak out. Try saying that saturated fat is harmless to registered dietitians and they will freak out. Try saying that vitamin D deficiency is widespread and responsible for so many types of chronic diseases to the medical doctors and they freak out. I’ve spent enough time on CNN and FOX websites to notice a big difference. People on CNN website are very stubborn and refuse to listen to facts I provided that are not generally accepted by “mainstream” academia. People on FOX seemed to be more open minded. Funny how that works…

And on this muddle we are expected to salute and march. A coalition is active to unseat the senior operations man for the cabal that continues to use funding to bend science. Republican Senator Lamar Alexander recently postulated a “new” vision for energy. In it he called for “more research” He’s talking about funding for more Marcott style public relations blasts spewing from ORNL supercomputers. In many ways Alexander is our Tim Yeo although his methods are more subtle and his goals much broader. I believe you will see a sharp media focus on climate policy if we manage to get him into electoral trouble.

Slightly OT, Google are shutting down their Blog reader product next month, it would be interesting to find out the user statistics between skeptics and alarmists and if this has influenced their decision.
I would hate to think that when “do no evil” looks for public support from it’s users over censorship issues, it is actually being two-faced with its own kind of censorship.

Does Al Gore still sit on the board of directors at Apple and serve as a senior adviser to Google?

David Roberts, of course, is the fellow who in Sept. ’06 wrote “we should have war crimes trials for these bastards – some sort of climate Nuremberg”. He wasn’t alone, either. Mark Lynas, in May ’06 wrote “I wonder what sentences judges might hand down at future international criminal tribunals on those who will be partially but directly responsible for millions of deaths from starvation, famine and disease in decades ahead. I put this in a similar category to Holocaust denial – except that this time the Holocaust is yet to come, and we still have time to avoid it. Those who try to ensure we don’t will one day have to answer for their crimes”.
Little did they know then, that the real enemy of mankind was themselves. Now, they are beginning to reap what they have sown.

I gather at least some of this perception was confirmed by the 2012 Republican presidential candidates, when most raised their hand as not believing in evolution. I found this summary (from examiner.com) of their respective positions on evolution:

Newt Gingrich: doesn’t need to be conflict between faith and science, both should be kept separate

Mitt Romney: believes in a God-guided evolution

Pro-Creation

Rick Perry: called evolution ‘a theory with some gaps in it,’ a firm believer of intelligent design

Michele Bachmann: pro-intelligent design, but thinks both sides should be given equal time in school
Rick Santorum: believes the Bible is literal truth, tried to get creationism mandate included in NCLB

Ron Paul: said of evolution ‘I don’t accept it’ but that judging candidates on such an issue is wrong, too

Undeclared

Herman Cain: has not specifically addressed the question in public, but has strong religious beliefs

Via the latest WUWT post I found this paragraph which (almost) nicely sums up the current situation.

It was always going to end with a whimper, not a bang. The scare was so big, so dominating, so accepted, that it could not be sustained. Unless, of course, it was true. It’s now not possible to maintain the huff and puff that the media and politics need to keep the headlines running.http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/global-warming-ends-whimper-dc-141467

Used in a sentence-
David Roberts of Grist thinks that the best way to achieve his preferred policies for constipating CACC is via immoral, merciless, ruthless, dishonest, corrupt, depraved, unprincipled, scheming means.

Congratulations to David Roberts for providing an elevator summary of the Climateers- the exact opposite of ethical, moral, principled or scrupulous.

Many conservatives have trouble with evolution because it directly contradicts their religious beliefs, so they tend to interpret the science to protect their beliefs. There should really be no more problem with evolution then there is about believing in the sun centered solar system, but, the general acceptance of evolution is rather recent, and, as you must know, evolution is very complex.

Even the believers in evolution cannot explain many facets of it. For example, explain to me how different numbers of chromosomes have evolved in closely related mammalian species.
Explain how Darwinism accounts for sudden changes the fossil record. Catastrophes to explain the fossil record were a favorite explanation of the Christians back in the 19th century. Catastrophes are now in vogue among the atheists.

I think these questions will be answered with more research, but, that is a belief. I can’t prove it.

But, for all their problems with evolution, the conservatives do not take their beliefs on evolution and try to redesign the industrial world to suit these beliefs. That is, their quaint ideas on evolution are not a threat to anyone.

The Democrats have taken their “religious” beliefs and have created social and governmental policies to put them into force, with disastrous effects. The global warming crusade is just one of them.

BTW, the reason that “deniers” know more than the believers in the global warming debate is simple. Our education system teaches almost nothing about climate. What the kids get in school is unadulterated propaganda. So, anybody who takes a few tens of hours to learn about climate will simply run rings around the average person, who believes the propaganda.

Joel Hammer says:
June 16, 2013 at 10:35 am
“Even the believers in evolution cannot explain many facets of it. For example, explain to me how different numbers of chromosomes have evolved in closely related mammalian species.”

“Explain how Darwinism accounts for sudden changes the fossil record.”

Evolutions usually accumulate changes in the genome that don’t become apparent in changes to the fitness of individuals at first (most of the genetic changes come about not through mutations but through genetic crossover or in the case of bacteria, horizontal gene transfer (introns)). Only occasionally, after many generations, occurs a sudden leap to a higher fitness, this often leads to progressive improvements over several generations. The name for it is punctuated equilibrium. I have only observed it in certain simulated evolutions (genetic algorithms) but the theory of punctuated equilibrium comes from Stephen Gould. It can explain a scarcity of “missing link” fossils.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

In practice, the potential for a new “trick” that the population learns accumulates over time, then, suddenly, the accumulated changes actually get applied, and an individual thrives, multiplies and the population gets infested with the new genetic trick, and begins to optimize it.

Notice that I see no contradiction between evolution and religion.
“But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” ( 2 Peter 3:8 )
Meaning, that the one week for the creation of the world should obviously not be taken literally.

Tin foil hats should have been issued to Revkin and Roberts for this interview.

What’s really amazing about Roberts is he really trying to pass off that he isn’t part of a tribe? They should really be wearing Grateful Dead or Che tee-shirts and passing a joint while wearing their tin-foil hats during the interview.

The totalitarian inclination in full-view at 53:, “public and media and just wrong”. We need climate a climate dictatorship.

David Roberts is a classic example of how the term “liberal” has evolved from meaning one who wants to extend people’s freedoms (Civil Rights Act, 1964, which, incidentally, more Republicans than Democrats supported) and enable them to keep as much as possoible of the fruits of their labor (JFK tax cuts, 1961) to meaning one who wants tiny self-appointed elites to rule the world, confiscate people’s earnings to use for their own personal use and enrichment, and suppress civil liberties. Today’s “liberals” are anything but, in the classic sense of the word; what they are is fascist reactionaries, looking backward for their inspiration to the failed socialist models that, among other things, gave us the Holocaust and the Gulag – even as their meme portends another Holocaust, possibly one amounting to a substantial multiple of the last one. This is why I call these people the Criminal Reactionary Left.

This conversion of the liberal identity really began with the opposition to the Vietnam War, which found the left wing increasingly sympathetic and apologetic for a tyrannical, brutal, amoral enemy – and I do not hesitate to say that these sympathizers bear a heavy share of the responsibility for the Holocaust that followed in Vietnam and Cambodia after the Communist victory. Among other things, the leftist news media falsely reported Tet as a defeat for the US, when in fact it was a devastating defeat for the Viet Cong, as acknowledged by them, virtually wiping them out (and then the war was taken over by the North Vietnamese). (And failed to report, indeed actually covered up, huge atrocities by the Communist side – 100,000 people buried alive in ditches with bulldozers outside of Hue, as an example, during Tet.)

I believe AGW is rooted in this same mentality, the same hatred of country and liberty and modern civilization in general that drove the Vietnam dissidents. This is evident in the singularly destructive effects, intended not unintended, of what they propose for the world. David Roberts and his ilk will be just as responsble for the next Holocaust. And now we have that ultimate enemy sympathizer, so very enamored of all those tyrannies that control the UN, John Kerry, leading the charge for AGW that threatens to destroy the world as we know it.

““45 min Roberts on social proof: Really nobody is acting as if they really believed in global warming alarmism. ***
52 Roberts: hard-core deniers know more about climate than casual believers;… ””

***************

They KNOW it’s only a belief. Their language betrays them.”

Nice pick Janice Moore. This is precisely it. Their beliefs came not from science other than the parts where “science” supported their socialist beliefs – i.e. shut down capitalism and go for prescription socio-economics.

John M says:
June 16, 2013 at 10:20 am
———————————-
Thanks for the links, most amusing.
Got me a little sad when i thought that the political class of the US are likely the result of a private education.

“39 min Roberts wants to “Force people to behave differently”. Wants a certain class of people (“His class”, “elites”) to force people to behave differently”

Global Warming Is Feudalism

This shows what the thoroughly modern and up to date, ‘progressive’ global warming movement really is, it is actually a return to the ancient ways. In olden times, there were two classes of people, nobles, and pheasants. The nobles considered themselves ‘your betters’, they, after all, went to all the right schools, had the best taste, and all that, the pheasants were boorish and ignorant, ‘the rabble’, ‘the masses’. Nobles made all the decisions and received all the benefits and pheasants were slaves in all but name and lived in abject poverty. The nobles stayed in top by using force, the pheasants were not allowed arms (read the papers, pheasants like you cannot be trusted with arms, only nobles, or their designated representatives, like the army and police, who the nobles think they control, can be trusted).

Then along came a new idea, “that all men are created equal’, and all that changed. Now, however, after more than two centuries of that, we were are offered “hope and change”, which immediately caused me, at least, to ask “change from what”? We are indeed changing, we are ‘progressing’ back to the ancient way, where a small number of ‘nobles’ will make all the decisions and the rest will be their slaves.

This, however, brings about a certain resentment among those who now think of themselves as the nobles did, ‘your betters’. One can see this idea going on for years, for instance, in art. With freedom and learning, people were able to appreciate the same art that was formerly reserved only for the nobles. The modern ‘nobles’ (so they perceive themselves, although they will not admit it) did not like that, how could they show their superior taste if all could? So they invented ‘modern art’, and told themselves that the reason most did not like it was because they alone had the superior taste to appreciate it. Just go look at the modern art displayed in front of your government buildings, ugly simplistic statues that you don’t appreciate as the great art they tell you it is because you are a boor and think that it was made that way because it is easier than going to the trouble of actually making something people like (a lot of work!).

Now, to save you from global warming, they must reimpose all the old controls the nobles had, they must control every part of your life (as controlling power generation and use will do) ‘for your own good’. in short, this is merely a return to feudalism. Or in their own words ” Roberts: Thinks the best way to get his preferred policy is via Machiavellian means”.

“What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which one can say, “Look! This is something new”? It was here already, long ago; it was here before our time.”

@Legatus –
The same things that you describe re art and sculpture have happened in classical music: the going thing is noise that most people would not recognize as music. In the three principal “styles” of “musical” composition, serialism (cerealism?), indeterminacy (indiscriminacy?) and miminalism (trivialism?), still in vogue at the music establishment, there has been a systematic process of purging the material of all that makes music what it is: recognizable melody, harmonic progression, formal cohesion. (Minimalism, while usually less harshly dissonant than some of this other crap, is no less devoid of musical content.). Composers seeking to provide entertaining music – for isn’t that the purpose of music, to entertain? – are marginalized. And sadly, the bulk of the traditonal concertgoing audience that supported classical music has been largely driven out of the concert hall for fear of being forced to listen to this acoustical garbage – in fact, this stuff might well be termed acoustical abuse, since much of it is openly intended to offend audiences.

I am myself the composer of over 150 works in many genres and styles, including 9 symphonies, 16 string quartets, 20 concerti for various combinations, 21 piano sonatas, many art songs, short piano pieces and a lot of other chamber music. And I have gotten nowhere with my efforts to get my music performed and in print. While I certainly wouldn’t presume to be a great composer – that would be for posterity to judge, at best – some of the people who have heard such computer-generated recordings as I have of my music have raved about it and begged for more – including of some of my more astringent pieces, and I think I am not out of line in thinking my material deserves a hearing.

Some may say that dissonance is the problem with modern classical music, but audiences love improv jazz, about as dissonant as you can get, some of it, yet the three essentials of musicality are plainly in it and people respond to it. Many 20th-century composers like, say, Bartok or Ravel, have produced very dissonant music that audiences love – likewise because the essentials are there. But then you have Arnold Schoenberg, the serialist – probably the single most destructive influence on music in history – and John Cage, who did things like saying sitting at a piano for 4e minutes 33 seconds doing nothing was “music” and rolling dice to decide which note to play next – and then finally the miminalists repeating an inane three-note phrase 1,000 times and calling that “music.”

Of course, the establishment empire fights back – you have arrogant blowhard Charles Wuorinen saying people don’t like serialism because they’re too lazy or too stupid to learn to understand it. Well, I’ve got news for Wuorinen – people reject serialism because they DO understand it and recognize it for the unmusical crap that it is.

What is the connection here to global warming? The music establishment to a man/woman are fanatical warmistas, and their conceptions of what is music is about on a par with their conceptions of what is climate change. Funny how dogmatism and intolerance and delusion and hubris and just plain stupidity (on the part of people who surely ought to, and could, know better) run across so many different disciplines.

@Legatus –
How about we force Roberts to “behave differently”? See how he likes his own medicine, being hoist on his own petard?
Also you put your finger very adeptly on the fundamentally reactionary character of leftist politics.
Beautifully said. Congrats definitely deserved.

@Bruce Cobb –
The next Holocaust is already under way, but it is the doing of Roberts & Co.: 36,000 dead in Europe from hypothermia because carbon taxes made them unable to heat their homes; 200,000 starved in Africa because of the ethanol program; more thousands dead from der Fuehrer’s favorite energy source – biomass, i.e., the shit too many Afroicans have to burn to cook their food. The list of alarmist crimes goes on and on. If force is to be used, let it be used against the REAL Holocaust deniers – those who think it’s A-OK for green to kill people (and endangered species like California condors and whooping cranes).

I am myself the composer of over 150 works in many genres and styles, including 9 symphonies, 16 string quartets, 20 concerti for various combinations, 21 piano sonatas, many art songs, short piano pieces and a lot of other chamber music. And I have gotten nowhere with my efforts to get my music performed and in print. While I certainly wouldn’t presume to be a great composer – that would be for posterity to judge, at best – some of the people who have heard such computer-generated recordings as I have of my music have raved about it and begged for more – including of some of my more astringent pieces, and I think I am not out of line in thinking my material deserves a hearing.

Some may say that dissonance is the problem with modern classical music, but audiences love improv jazz, about as dissonant as you can get, some of it, yet the three essentials of musicality are plainly in it and people respond to it. Many 20th-century composers like, say, Bartok or Ravel, have produced very dissonant music that audiences love – likewise because the essentials are there. But then you have Arnold Schoenberg, the serialist – probably the single most destructive influence on music in history – and John Cage, who did things like saying sitting at a piano for 4e minutes 33 seconds doing nothing was “music” and rolling dice to decide which note to play next – and then finally the miminalists repeating an inane three-note phrase 1,000 times and calling that “music.” ……..””””””

Lots of people I know, would say that the era of “classical music” came to an end with Beethoven, launching a new genre of Romanticism, where composers paid more attention to how their music sounded to their audience (and the ear), and less attention to how it might be linked to “Art of Fugue.”.

So modern “classical” music, to me sounds like a dissonance in itself.

But good luck on your “stuff”, which I’ll accept that you regard as “serious music”, as distinct from the “one from column a, one from column b” of modern “music du jour”.

Our local Bay Area (SF) “classical music station” KDFC, has the world’s largest collection of obscure music, from obscure composers, some dating back to 1066, or thereabouts. They play it all day long to Bay Area audiences who just lap it up.

And the vast majority of that music, thoroughly deserves ALL the obscurity it can muster; and then some.

It was trash when it was written, and it is still trash today; but it seems that some folks won’t let it go away. I defy one out of ten KDFC listeners to recall any composer and composition pre 1750, that they heard on KDFC just one week ago today; and hum a few bars from it.

People don’t realize, just what giants, were the Bachs, Mozarts, and Beethovens of great music.

Antonio Salieri was most fortunate as a composer, to have a spat with Mozart. But for that, he would be a quite unknown name of history; even to the zealots at KDFC, who dredge up all that old elevator music rubbish, they play all the time.

My son writes “music”, dj style on his computer; its all ones and zeros. No, I could not hum you a single bar, from anything, he ever put together, and I doubt he could hum anything he wrote 6 months ago.

But it sure pleases the crowds, who attend the events, where he gets paid to entertain. Well isn’t that what all those ancient composers did. Provide elevator music, for their patron, while he wined himself to sleep after dinner.

I suspect that what your son does has musical content, even though it may not be “hummable”; a lot of great 20th-century classical (small-C) music isn’t hummable either (e.g., Bartok’s Divertimento for Strings, or Charles Ives’s “Concord” Sonata)

As for the term “classical,” uncapitalized “classical” refers to the entire genre of music specifically intended as art music. This is not to say that oither musics, such as jazz, are not “serious,” the difference is one of which styles are considered part of the genre. Also, some music usually regarded as “popular” has, with time and appreciation of its high quality and artistic achievement, become regarded by some as “classical” for example, Scott Joplin’s rags, Stephen Foster’s songs and John Philip Sousa’s marches. And I personally woould say that some of the best pop – particularly from the American Graffiti era and the big-band era a la Glenn Miller – has a far better claim to being called “classical” than the serial, aleatory and minimalist rubbish being passed off today. (Please, a pox upon the houses of Schoenberg, Cage and Adams and their CRL/AGW alarmist followers!)

Capitalized, “Classic”(not “Classical”) means specifically music from the period between around 1730 (Pergolesi, Boccherini, the Stamitzes, W.F. Bach) to 1828 (death of Franz Schubert). (Schubert is often counted as Romantic, but his music is entirely Classic in structure and execution.) The early Classic period does overlap the late Baroque, insofar as much of J.S. Bach’s most powerful and important nusic was written between 1730 and 1750.

I beg to differ regarding KDFC – I gave up on them after they began playing lots of pop music, most of it of inferior quality even for the genre. I didn’t go there to hear Elton John (yuck!). If I want classical radio today, I go to Sirius Symphony Hall, channel 77; if I want pop, I’ll go to stations that play big-band or American Graffiti-style music.

What does ones opinion about evolution matter in regards to AGW theory? It looks like a huge Red Herring. The notion that it represents a science “high ground” is in fact more science ignorance. There isn’t a global tax and control system associated to believing in Creationism unlike the AGW cult.

How wonderful that you have the gift of creating beautiful music. While it is, indeed, intrinsically rewarding, composing for only family and friends can be disheartening. I hope (and I’m going to pray, too!) that you soon have the joy of hearing your music performed in public by a group talented enough to do your work justice.

You certainly can WRITE (See above #[:)])… how about writing a book about, say….. How Anti-Tradition (for the mere sake of it) Promotes Ugliness in Music and Graphic Art and Sculpture?** — EVEN IF it never gets published, it will be a great way to journal your thoughts, to enhance your writing style (ask an intelligent friend to read for clarity and brevity), and to “vent,” too.

**(and in clothes, too, — I’m sorry, but an orange and spit-pea-soup green with brown striped top worn with hot pink trousers is UGLY — who CARES if it’s “in”!!!)

@Janice Moore –
Thank you so much for your kind words.
It so happens I have wrutten the first volume and am working on the second volume of what is to be a trilogy about an alien world that is very like our own – not your typical sci-fi stuff at all. And in this long story, there are some not-so subtle criticisms of leftist ideology and anti-science, including a reference or two to global warming (the planet where the story takes place has 10 times as much CO2 in its otherwise earthlike atmosphere, and ain’t burning up) and a general view of how our own world might be if people behaved themselves and had some solid spiritual grounding. While I am an atheist, I believe it is possible nonetheless to find spiritual and moral grounding in some very simple concepts: the Golden Rule, the focus on well-being and the agreement to disagree being perhaps the most important aspects of this – and that is one of the messages of my story, that one can be spiritually grounded and moral without believing in a supreme being. The second volume, which I am presently working on, is a biography (fictional, of course) of a man whose teachings eventually become the guiding philosophy of everyone on the planet (very human-like people they are). This man is a sort of Jesus, Leonardo da Vinci, Johann Sebastian Bach and Abraham Lincoln all rolled into one, but he is a mortal figure, not a divinity, and I am being very careful as to how I express his influence and power with (not really over) people strictly without supernatural elements or magic or miracles in the Christian sense.

No publisher yet – but I am hopeful. Several people have raved about the first volume, and I hope to be able to use them as testimonials in my query letters to literary agents.

I suspect that what your son does has musical content, even though it may not be “hummable”; a lot of great 20th-century classical (small-C) music isn’t hummable either (e.g., Bartok’s Divertimento for Strings, or Charles Ives’s “Concord” Sonata)

As for the term “classical,” uncapitalized “classical” refers to the entire genre of music specifically intended as art music……”””””

Well I don’t know beans about music; any kind of music; but my ear DOES know what it likes to HEAR.

So my “three Bs. might be Berlioz, Bruckner, and Borodin, rather than the traditional set; not that I don’t like the regular choice. I have no clue whatsoever, what JS Bach is doing; other than I know it is somehow very important.

Strange as it may seem, I once played one of the fabulous 12 organ works of Cesar Frank; the Fantasie in C Major from his six pieces of 1862 (opus 16 I think) on a giant four manual, plus full 80 pedals, pipe organ (actually a dual organ, so I had stereo as well), without making a single mistake, and sounding pretty good I might add, yet I could never play a note of Bach, and can’t play chopsticks, on a piano. Well I can’t play organ any more either, as the electronics have gone phut, in my two manual Allen electronic Church Organ. Well I had to completely finger it myself, both for my two manual at home, and for the four manual in the church, and set up both to emulate the three manual organ of St Clotilde, where Franck composed the pieces. And then I had to learn it all by heart, since I simply cannot follow the music. Well that was 20 years ago now, and I doubt I could play now. I also learnt a couple of Franz Liszt pieces, and a few movements from some Widor Organ Symphonies. All lost in history, I’m afraid, as a result of never learning the basics. Never ever played the piano, before I started learning the Franck piece on that four manual organ.

So I appreciate the skill of those who can play, and those who craft the images for our ears.

Chad Wozniak (and, please, call me Janice), that’s wonderful! Hang in there with those cantankerous publishers — many an excellent, ultimately published, author has had to go through months (sometimes, years!) of rejections before someone finally says, “Yes.” Speaking of Abraham Lincoln, he started a business and it failed and he ran and lost and ran and lost repeatedly until, one day… he was elected President of the United States. God’s perfect timing. Sigh. Sometimes, that timing is excruciatingly NOT mine!

Say, have you read C. S. Lewis’ science fiction trilogy? Mainly, I think you would like the third one, That Hideous Strength (takes place on a “fictional” Earth — debunks academia and some other real life stuff in a way that sounds like what you wrote about in vol. 1).

Now, wouldn’t it be SO COOL if you ended up with a movie deal and used your music for the soundtrack?! Wow — that would be magnificent! Credits scrolling by:::::::::::::: Written by Chad Wozniak ::::::::::::::::: Musical Score by Chad Wozniak :::::::::::::::::::: Directed by Chad Wozniak :::::::::::::: Produced by Chad Wozniak ::::::::::::::::::: STARRING Janice Moore (bwah, ha, ha,, ha, haaaaaaaaaaaa!).

Wow, Mr. Smith — that you could make all that happen on the pipe organ (EVEN IF you COULD play the piano) is amazing. You are a genius.

Maybe, that’s why my musical taste is very different from yours (just like my IQ — not low, but definitely not genius). I like Tchaikovsky, Beethoven, and Bach — cannot stand Bartok, Copeland, et. al. — but, I LOVE 30’s and 40’s “jazz” or the “big band sound” — Can you hear Benny Goodman’s “Sing, Sing, Sing” and not GET UP AND DANCE?!! (or nod your head to the beat, if that is impossible) — that tune and “Monet, Monet” (sp?) by Billy Idol are the BEST improv-type dance music EVER. Lots of other good dance tunes, though.

@Janice Moore, george e. smith
(For cover, I write this to encourage all my fellow skeptics in the good fight against AGW lunacy.)
Thanks, Janice, for more kind words (and call me Chad). A suggestion: 20th-century music can take some getting used to, but there is actually a very easy way to approach Bartok’s music – his Concerto for Orchestra, which is wonderfully tuneful and tonal, yet also unmistakably modern. Listening to it might be a way to sort of ease into enjoying Bartok’s music – after hearing the Concerto for Orchestra, I think you will find pieces like the Divertimento for Strings or the Music for SWtrings, Percussion and Celesta rather more congenial – at least this has worked for some other folks who were hesitant about modern music. Another good item is Ravel’s Mother Goose Suite, similarly tuneful but definitely modern. And (not to toot the old horn too loudly) but the fourth number of my Organ Recital, Op.24, of which I have a complete synthesizer realization seems to have reasonated with folks ddespite its astringency – one person even told me it opened her eyes (or ears) to the possoibilities of twentieth-cebntury music. Organ Recital is a set of four pieces in successive styles – Baroque, Classic, Romantic and 20th century, with thematic links among them – they are intended to be played in chroinological order, as it were. My music runs the gamut from High Baroque to some pretty challenging and astringent modern, but I think that even my most dissonant pieces still preserve the elements – you can still follow the melodic development, the harmonic progression and the formal structure.

Mr. Smith – that is very interesting that you can play the organ but not the piano. – the pedals add a whole big new dimension to the difficulty of playing, to all accounts.

For myself – I actually play no instrument, never had lessons groewing up in a less-than-ideal environment – composing is strictly a mental process for me and I am totally self-taught (although when I studied music it was only after I had swritten a great deal, and the study confirmed what I had basically figured out on my own and from listening). If this seems too weird, remember that composers who write symphonies can’t play the orchestra.

Again, let’s all keep up the good fight!! Go science, and to Sheol with AGW.

This is very elucidating indeed. David Roberts is far more concerned about manipulating the power structures of society than anything else, not good reporting, not fairness, not happiness, only in utilizing the powerful to control the weak.

@Janice Moore –
No genius, perhaps a specialized talent – but again for posterity to judge. And you might want to wait to draw conclusions until you’ve heard some of my music.

I have read John in the Bible – inter alia, I had to as part of a course I took in college to meet my English literature requirement, “The Bible as Literature.” Part of the course was focused on how the Bible communicates its messages, as well as the aspects of prose and poetry in it. That’s almost 50 years ago, but I remember it well. Also, I have read parts of the first English – actually Middle English – translation of the Bible by John Wycliffe. And trust me, I do think you will find Bartok’s Concerto for Orchestra congenial – especially if you like Beethoven – Bartok’s music has much the same sort of power that Beethoven’s has, and that really shows in this piece. Yes, 20th-century music can be challenging, but it really helps to know some of the mechanics, as it were, of music – of counterpoint, fugue, sonata form, thematic development. A fugue makes a lot more sense and sounds a lot better if you understand how it works – and there are two terrific fugues in the Concerto for Orchestra, in the first and last movements (the one in the firs movement t is for the brass instruments, a really spectacular moment).. And so does music in dissonant styles – as you listen to more of it, it will grow on you, and you can appreciate that beauty need not be all sweetness and light.

And in the meantime, I plan to put whatever writing ability I have as best I can to work fighting AGW and for sanity in climate science.

Wow, Mr. Smith — that you could make all that happen on the pipe organ (EVEN IF you COULD play the piano) is amazing. You are a genius……”””””

Well I am a very ordinary person Janice; far from genius category. It was a labor of love to learn that organ piece, and find that I actually could make so much happen. You have to know something about both instruments to fathom why I was able to play on the organ, but not the piano.

A piano key is struck, and released. If you release an organ key, the sound shuts off immediately, so you have to hold the key down as long as you want the pipes to sound, and if the music is supposed to be played legato style rather than staccato, then you have to press the next key coincident with the release of the previous one. Here I am assuming that you are playing a single voice, so only one note is sounding at a time. But most likely there will be more voices; four or more; well don’t forget, those 32 pedals are a keyboard as well about 2 1/2 octaves.

So with ten fingers and thumbs, and two feet (each with a toe and a heel), you can get a hold of a lot of notes at the same time. But now you have to slide to a new set of notes, without leaving a gap. Your fingers get tied up in knots, walking from one key to another, often switching fingers on one key to shift your hands so you can even reach the next set of keys. That’s why you have to “finger” the piece. I literally wrote down on the score, exactly which finger had to get which note. With a piano, the music may have two staffs ( I hope that’s the correct word) With the organ, there will be more; one for the pedals, and one for each manual, so maybe five in all.

Well in the mid 1800s there was this French organ builder, by the name of Aristide Cavalle-Koll who invented a quite different organ. Typically three manuals plus pedals. He also invented some totally new organ pipe types; literally new instruments, so the organ, became a veritable symphony orchestra. The keyboards can be linked together, to add more power and tonality to the sound. It’s about comparable to driving the 16 inch gun turret of a battleship, in terms of manipulating power. So the mid to late 19th century French organ composers, started writing quite symphonic music, where they dictated the actual stops (instruments) to be used, just like other composers would dictate the instruments required for their compositions.

So the “crown jewels” of France are literally the Cavalle-Koll organs of St Clotilde, Notre Dame, and too many others for me to name (even if I knew them).

Anyhow it was fun, and I wish I had been able to keep it up. If I could get the electronic innards of mine upgraded to current technology, I’d have another go at it, instead of paying to keep it in a storage shed.

I see in my original post, that there were 80 pedals on that organ; well a slip of the toe on that; there are only 32. And the manual keyboards have only 56 keys, instead of the 81 or so a piano has. But the pipes come in ranks of 8ft, 4ft, 2,ft even one foot, and then down to 16 ft and 32 ft. I don’t think there are any 64 ft ranks, but it could be. well even the 32s just shake the building, and if you play several notes with the right intervals, you can generate sub-harmonics. So the frequency range extends way beyond the piano.